[WCA Regulations 2014] Mean of N for FMC

[Sebastien]

I don't think that "Median of 3" is better than "Mean of 3". Also I want to stay consistent with the formats we already have.

There is no event where it is easier to not DNF than FMC if you really want to not DNF. I think that someone getting a 28 and a 29 would never DNF the last solve if the format was "Mean of 3".

 

[Stefan]

Three attempts are rarer than two, though, and no world or continental competition has had three attempts. How about mean of 2?

 

[Noahaha]

Three attempts are rarer than two, though, and no world or continental competition has had three attempts. How about mean of 2?

Then what happens when you get 3 attempts? Do you count the best mean of two? I assume you wouldn't do the mean of the best two...

 

[Stefan]

Then what happens when you get 3 attempts?

Meh... maybe not offer three attempts in one round anymore? Has been offered rarely anyway.

Do you count the best mean of two? I assume you wouldn't do the mean of the best two...

I feel like this is a trick question cause I don't see the difference . Is there any?

 

[Noahaha]

I feel like this is a trick question cause I don't see the difference . Is there any?

If your score is 30, 50, 40, the best mean of 2 is 40, but the mean of your best 2 is 35.

 

[Stefan]

If your score is 30, 50, 40, the best mean of 2 is 40, but the mean of your best 2 is 35.

Ah, ok... best mean of two consecutive. Yeah, I now realize it's just like the rolling ones we're doing in cubing sessions, but somehow I didn't think of it here.

Why not mean of the best two?

 

[Noahaha]

Why not mean of the best two?

Because then there is a huge advantage of getting 3 attempts over two. In best mean of two, 3 solves would be almost like having two rounds where one round is your first two solves and one round is your last two.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Because then there is a huge advantage of getting 3 attempts over two. In best mean of two, 3 solves would be almost like having two rounds where one round is your first two solves and one round is your last two.

Also there is a slight luck element introduced. If you get lucky once on a Mo2, then it won't count as much, but more scrambles means more chances to spam for a skip.
I think only having one possible format would be the best course of action, also because it would make the rankings a bit more consistent.

On a related point, how many competitions have actually held 3 attempts of FMC, and how many have held 2?

 

[Stefan]

Because then there is a huge advantage of getting 3 attempts over two.

So people who do better are rewarded? Isn't that good?

And best mean of two has the huge problem that if you happen to DNF the middle one, you're totally screwed (and having one with many moves is bad, too).

 

[Ton]

I'm intending to push towards "Mean of 3" being a possible format for FMC in 2014's regulations, just like for 6x6x6, 7x7x7 and feet. Nowadays ~30% of the competitions hosting FMC have 2 attempts or more. I imagine that the number of competitions having 3 attempts would increase if this gives the possibility to the competitors to get a result for one more ranking. Especially major competitions should use a Mean to etermine the winner of FMC.

Any thoughts/comments?

For FMC is not uncommon to get a DNF , a mean of 3 it is quite harsh when you made one mistake like an error in notation in your solve.
For a mean of 3 , you need to get 3 FMC correct ! This is quite a challenging
To use a mean of 3 in a schedule is also challenging , it will take at least 3 hours 15 min in a schedule.

A mean of 3 will require a different approach for your solves, now you must to make sure you have at least one correct solve for each attempt then look for a better one and always make sure you hand in a correct solve

A mean of 3 should be allowed for FMC , why not, but you will get surprise winners. Not always the best will win as one little notation error will result in a DNF, in this case a DNF mean of 3 can be quite harsh

 

[Sebastien]

Three attempts are rarer than two, though, and no world or continental competition has had three attempts.

As I said, I assume that lots of competitions would host 3 attempts instead of 2 then to make a Mean possible. And I want to stay consistent with the formats we already have, as also already said.

Also Noah is right, that your proposal results in different conditions for different numbers of attempts. That's definitely a bad thing.

To clarify: I didn't want to restart this whole discussion and I'm not seeking for more possible formats, even though they might make sense in some way. I have the clear intention to get FMC moved from 9b3 to 9b2. Not more, not less. I want to rearrange the current universe, not expand it.

I don't really see the problem to host 3 FMC attempts for most competitions btw. FMC requires the least staff ressources from all events. Yes, maybe competitor's will have to skip other events if they want to use the full hour or to attend quite early/late on the day. I think that's fine though.

For FMC is not uncommon to get a DNF , a mean of 3 it is quite harsh when you made one mistake like an error in notation in your solve.
For a mean of 3 , you need to get 3 FMC correct ! This is quite a challenging
To use a mean of 3 in a schedule is also challenging , it will take at least 3 hours 15 min in a schedule.

A mean of 3 will require a different approach for your solves, now you must to make sure you have at least one correct solve for each attempt then look for a better one and always make sure you hand in a correct solve

A mean of 3 should be allowed for FMC , why not, but you will get surprise winners. Not always the best will win as one little notation error will result in a DNF, in this case a DNF mean of 3 can be quite harsh

You are right that a DNF would be harsh if the format is Mean of 3. But that's something that also goes for 6x6x6, 7x7x7 and feet. And it doesn't seem to be a problem there. And as I said before, I think that is far easier to not DNF in FMC than at every other event. As far as you don't do crazy last minute finishes, you can finish your solve in FMC and check your solution multiple times before the attempt ends. This is a benefit that you don't have for any other event.

I also don't think that it is a common thing that "better" FMC competitors hand in a solution which is supposed to work and then doesn't. I haven't had a single DNF like this in my whole cubing career.

 

[Benyó]

i'm not sure it is a good idea. fmc is already a very time consuming event. i always feel sad when i see two attempts in fmc on a smaller comp (like on czo13), because instead they could easily fit a 6x6, a 7x7 and even a 2x2/pyraminx final in that one hour. of course, i'd like to have events i love, but a two (or three)-hour-event is just a waste of time.
i agree the thing that fmc results don't show the skill of the competitors most of the time, but 1 hours per attempt is too much, if you want more attempts, than limit the time to 30 minutes or less.

 

[Noahaha]

i'm not sure it is a good idea. fmc is already a very time consuming event. i always feel sad when i see two attempts in fmc on a smaller comp (like on czo13), because instead they could easily fit a 6x6, a 7x7 and even a 2x2/pyraminx final in that one hour. of course, i'd like to have events i love, but a two (or three)-hour-event is just a waste of time.
i agree the thing that fmc results don't show the skill of the competitors most of the time, but 1 hours per attempt is too much, if you want more attempts, than limit the time to 30 minutes or less.

The other option is to roll means across competitions.

 

[Sebastien]

To clarify: I didn't want to restart this whole discussion and I'm not seeking for more possible formats, even though they might make sense in some way. I have the clear intention to get FMC moved from 9b3 to 9b2. Not more, not less. I want to rearrange the current universe, not expand it.

The other option is to roll means across competitions.

Stop. Making. Weird. Format. Proposals. Please!

It might be nice to think of weird stuff that might somehow make sense, but all of you should just realize that a proposal is less likely to be realized the less it fits into the current WCA universe.

 

[kinch2002]

Time-wise, I don't see a problem. I would still only hold one attempt at UK comps, and I assumed that other comps would also. I see the mean of 3 as very useful for major championships only, where there is enough time.

With regards to DNFs, I don't see a problem. Writing stuff down correctly isn't hard imo. I fail to see how people write things down wrong. Even if you do, just check your solution.

 

[Benyó]

The other option is to roll means across competitions.

you only care about wca rankings. rankings (including wrs) are not as important as the results of competitions, because you'll always get some kind of result at the end of a comp, but might not break pb, nr, cr, wr all the time. if we would have this kind of ranking, we still had the luck-problem in every single fmc event.
your idea is good, but it's enough if we sometimes check it in the stats request topic.

 

[Noahaha]

you only care about wca rankings. rankings (including wrs) are not as important as the results of competitions, because you'll always get some kind of result at the end of a comp, but might not break pb, nr, cr, wr all the time. if we would have this kind of ranking, we still had the luck-problem in every single fmc event.
your idea is good, but it's enough if we sometimes check it in the stats request topic.

I understand. My perspective is different from yours for two reasons:

1. I get to compete way too often.
2. I don't have a lot of competition in the blindfolded events.

Because of that podiums have never meant as much to me as world rankings.

 

[Sebastien]

Time-wise, I don't see a problem. I would still only hold one attempt at UK comps, and I assumed that other comps would also. I see the mean of 3 as very useful for major championships only, where there is enough time.

Major championships are those, where it would be primilary important to have a mean, yes. But it would be useful for all others as well, even though by far less because the importance of who wins at a random competition is clearly lower.

Still you are pointing to the absolutely only issue I see: "Mean of 3" for FMC means a new ranking, and if only major competitions would host that format, many people wouldn't get a chance of getting into this ranking. this would be a bad thing. BUT: I claim that it wouldn't be like this. As already said many competitions have more than 1 attempt for FMC already and I think many organisers would host 3 attempts so that people can do a Mean if that format would be official. Most competitions hosting FMC would still have only Best of 1, true, but I'd expect 20-25% of the competitions with FMC to provide Mean of 3 after the change.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I've been contemplating putting together a "Missing Averages" competition in Indiana (independent of my regular yearly Indiana competition) where we would allow competitors to have the chance to make the "Missing Averages" page in the Misc section of the WCA site. This would make that competition more attractive.

By the way, my competition would hopefully also allow a mean of 3 for multiBLD (which really should be added to that Missing Averages page, by the way - at least we could have a point total average). It would be a very long day if you did them all.

 

[joey]

Should multi be mean of 3 too?